Why 5.56?

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dangerwing

New member
I recently found myself in a discussion with another guy about our military. As a member of the US Army, I found myself trying to defend our weapons. His point was that the 5.56 is relatively impotent. Does anyone have any good reason why we use the 5.56, or is it just politics/playing nice-e-nice with NATO etc? Your thoughts?
 
One reason is its a lighter cartiage and in Nam GIs could load up. They now are looking at a different cartiage cant remember but want to say 7.62. But knowing the military this could change from week to week
 
1. We forced Nato to accept the 5.56 as standard.
2. Lots of dead Vietnamese, Iraqis, Afghans, etc., would disagree on the lethality of the 5.56 round.
 
This comes up almost every week and seems to go nowhere, people seem to be too entrench in their view.
I will say this, if the 5.56 is so impotent then why has every major power gone to it or to very similar rounds, such as the Soviets/Russians with their 5.45x39 (AK-74) replacing the 7.62x39 AK-47s starting in the 1970s and the Chinese with the 5.8.
 
Nothing wrong with the 5.56 as an intermediate combat round. It works, it worked in Vietnam, but to get a bit further out it was changed to the 62 grn bullets, to get still further they've adapted a 77 grn bullet for their SDM (Squad Designated Marksman) program. Its good to about 700 yards.

In Vietnam the M16A1 with it's 55 grn bullet was tried as a sniper rifle, it has registered confirm kills up to 700 meters.

You wont see the 5.56 going anywhere soon.

Funny thing is, I haven't met any Infantrymen bitching about the 5.56. Lots of Internet stories about someones brother, knew a guy who was 3 rd cousin, 4 times removed,from a guy who shot 14 guys with the 5.56 and it didn't knock the dust off their jacket.

So I say again, THERE'S NOT A DAMN THING WRONG WITH THE 5.56 ROUND.
 
1. We forced Nato to accept the 5.56 as standard.
Click to expand...
...and furthermore, we did so only a few years after forcing our NATO allies to adopt the 7.62x51. Problem was, we discovered a few years later in 'Nam that the 7.62 M-14 rifle was too heavy, our troops couldn't carry enough ammo cause it was also too heavy, and the cartridge had so much recoil that the rifle was uncontrollable in full-auto.

Oops. :rolleyes:

IIRC the kicker was that the British military had already been developing a lightweight high-velocity small-caliber round- it was actually 6mm caliber if memory serves- but they canned the program when we crammed the 7.62x51 down their throats.

The irony... :rolleyes:
Does anyone have any good reason why we use the 5.56...
Click to expand...
In short, it's plenty lethal at the combat ranges commonly encountered by the average infantryman, the ammo is light enough that the troops can carry a lot of it, and its recoil is mild enough that it's controllable in full-auto using a lightweight, easy-to-carry rifle.
 
5.56

The 5.56 round is not impotent.
Most industrialized nations have gradually gone to rounds smaller than the 7.62, .303, 30-06 etc., for a number of reasons, including:
- most engagements occur at ranges of 300 meters or less
- large caliber rounds are heavy, infantry already carry a lot of weight, and
with semi- and fully auto rifles, troops need to carry more rounds; for the same weight more rounds of 5.56 can be carried
- marksmanship can be learned more easily with light-recoiling rifles for the majority of troops

The 5.56 will have less penetration of cover than the old battle rounds, but this is rarely a critical factor. For longer range sniping, specialized weapons are routinely used.

I get to talk to folks returning from Iraq and Afghanistan every week, with various backgrounds from regular infantry to Spec Ops people. I ask about their satisfaction with the M-4, M16A2 and A4, and no one has ever said they consider the rifle or the round to be unsatisfactory.
 
His point was that the 5.56 is relatively impotent.
Click to expand...

/shrug

It's put down everyone I've needed to put down, WHEN I've needed to put them down.

5.56 is an excellent compromise between accuracy, power, range, and weight. While the M855 will get the job done, both the MK 262 77gr and the 68gr Barnes proved to have better effects on target.
 
A lot more goes into wound ballistics than just bullet size. Unfortunately many people see bullet size as the end all of wound ballistics, to them a bigger bullet is always better no matter what any other factors are. Much the same crap goes on in the 9mm vs 45acp arguments. Google 5.56 wound ballistics, the 5.56 is a very effective little son of a gun. Many will counter that the 7.62x51 is more effective at long range, it is, but most combat takes place within the 5.56's most effective range.
I'm sure your friend will bring up internet stories where the 5.56 was impotent, keep looking and you find such stories about every small arms ever made. You'll even find stories where people were hit by 50bmg and kept fighting. Does that mean the 50bmg is impotent?
 
Last edited:
His point was that the 5.56 is relatively impotent.
Click to expand...

I have heard the same thing about the .45 Colt and ACP, the .38 and .357, the 9mm and the .380.

None of the people who continue to spout this nonsense are willing to stand in front of the impotent bullet when it is fired...

When I was in the US Air Force, I spent some time with the US Army along the Korean DMZ. I would hate the thought of doing those long walks with a heavy rifle, my pack and the Good Lords knows what else we had to carry.

As Doc TH pointed out, engagement ranges for combat have gotten closer. We no longer need to shoot across open fields at people in trenches.

The weapon we use should be chosen for the environment in which it is most likely to be used. It would be great if everybody could carry "a combination AK 57 oozie radar laser triple-barrel double-scoped heat-seekin shotgun."
 
It may come as a surprise for some to learn that the 5.56 mm was not the original chambering of the AR-15. The first models were in, I think, .222, but it wasn't considered adequate and the .223 was developed, presuambly from the original cartridge, making the AR-15 the first rifle to chamber that cartridge and for a long time, that was all it came in. The civilian market took up the .223 almost right away, just as they did with the .308 Winchester and long before that, the .30-06, the .30-03, the .30 Government and so on.

Remember also that the AR-15 came out after the AR-10, which they sold a few of but failed to set the shooting world on fire.
 
None of the people who continue to spout this nonsense are willing to stand in front of the impotent bullet when it is fired...
Click to expand...

This everyone, is what is known as a "Red Herring" logical fallacy.

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
Click to expand...

Fallacy: Red Herring

Using your same logic we should issue all of out troops BB guns since none of us want to get shot with BB guns either. Such reasoning only exposes the inability of the person using it to debate and/or a weakness in their position.

Anyway, the primary weakness of the 5.56 is that it was designed for 20" barrels and the fact the military is needlessly limited to FMJ ammo. When used in shorter barrels like the M4 the fragmentation range is greatly compromised, as this common photos shows.

M16FragmentationbyVelocity.jpg


The problem is exasperated by the 62 grain M885 and it's tougher construction. The problem has been somewhat addressed by introduction of 70+ grain loads, but these are crippled by the need to seat them deep in the case in order to fit in the AR magazine, significantly reducing powder capacity and performance.

The British were on the right track with a 7mm cartridge and the .276 Pedersen cartridge was a very good design. Had it been adopted we likely would still be using it today.

The use of expanding ammo removes the terminal ballistics issue as one can see in gel tests here. If the military used expanding ammo there would not be an issue.

http://le.atk.com/pdf/223RifleDataBook.pdf
 
There's a plethora of reasons US DOD went with the 5.56x39. More than just what was listed here. In the end, it's cost-schedule-performance.

The 7.62x51 is becoming popular for some missions, but the 5.56 isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

Other more specialized rounds are here to stay as well, although the logisticians might be pulling their hair out before too long.
 
Is your friend comparing the M-16 (5.56) to the M1 Garand (30.06) or to the M-14 (7.62) that the M-16 replaced

My back is killing me this morning, so I am not getting out of bed, but if someone doesn't post pictures of M-16 ammo next to M1 Garand ammo I will post them later (sorry I don't anything in 7.62). You can carry a heck of a lot more ammo. When you consider the weight of the M-16 and it's ability to fire full auto it does have it's advantages. The Garand has the edge in distance but most fire fights are in close. I want an M1 Garand that holds 30 rounds, fires full auto and is as light as a M-16
 
Like I once said - re-equip the army with M1 Garands and 1911s, the Navy with Iowa class BBs and the air force with P-51s and the grandpas will be quiet.

But then someone will want to bring back the Cavalry. :D
 
More ammo=pray and spray? I never understood the theory. After all, wouldn't a little longer .30 Carbine provide a much better platform for medium range if we loved the smaller version for its CQB range performance?

As a farm boy growing up shooting head shots on squirrels and varmints with all the .22 calibers widely available, I'll just never be impressed with our military choice. I mean c'mon, a .22 rifle shooting at 300 yard silhouhettes for qualifying? We always used tuna or cat food can lids. All you have to do is shoot a .222 or .223 on a windy day to see what I mean. I would head right back into the house for the .243 if I felt a breeze--still do today.

I love my AR, as all my guns. I just don't understand why we can't rechamber to something more reasonably adaptable to a variety of uses to fit this supreme implement? Every time I shoot my FAL, AK, or even the SKS, I always find myself thinking, "Now that feels like a rifle." Maybe some day.....


-7-
 
The 5.56 round is not impotent.
Most industrialized nations have gradually gone to rounds smaller than the 7.62, .303, 30-06 etc., for a number of reasons, including:
- most engagements occur at ranges of 300 meters or less
- large caliber rounds are heavy, infantry already carry a lot of weight, and
with semi- and fully auto rifles, troops need to carry more rounds; for the same weight more rounds of 5.56 can be carried
- marksmanship can be learned more easily with light-recoiling rifles for the majority of troops
Click to expand...

I couldn't have made those points any better.
 
I think hollywood has given small brained people an unreasonable expectation of what a rifle should be capable of doing.

I remember one moron over on another site who was puzzled because he saw video of a soldier in iraq putting a burst into a vehicle that was approaching too fast. The guy couldn't understand why the vehicle didn't explode or something. :rolleyes:

Likewise... the opposite is true. I see booger eaters on the forum ALL THE TIME who have unrealistic beliefs in what 7.62 rifles are capable of. They think that they can punch through and entire city and kill a bad guy a mile away.
 
Why 5.56 when there's the much improved 6.8spc? :D
I would never have owned an AR rifle in 5.56(.223) because of its limited applications. Since they've been offered in a more versatile and effective caliber, 6.8spc, it became a more viable option for me and I now own one.
But then again, I'm a practical and pragmatic person, not like the politically driven military industrial complex.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top